Federal Underwriters Exchange v. Guest, 1901.
Decision Date | 28 April 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 1901.,1901. |
Parties | FEDERAL UNDERWRITERS EXCHANGE v. GUEST et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Benbow, Saunders & Holliday, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.
Grindstaff, Zellers & Hutcheson, of Weatherford, Touchstone, Wight, Gormley & Price, of Dallas, and E. S. Cummings, of Abilene, for defendants in error.
This is an appeal by Federal Underwriters Exchange from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Gay Guest, in a case wherein two Workmen's Compensation cases were consolidated. Both cases grew out of the same injury sustained by Gay Guest on October 8, 1936, when a line broke and let a joint of casing fall on him while he and other members of the "Good Luck Casing Crew" were running pipe in an oil well being drilled by S. C. Herring. Herring's driller was in charge of the oil well drilling operations when Guest was injured. The Federal Underwriters Exchange paid Guest compensation for a short time and then stopped making payments. Proceedings were had before the Industrial Accident Board and separate suits later filed by Guest against Federal Underwriters Exchange, the compensation carrier of J. T. Evetts, doing business as the "Good Luck Casing Crew," and Casualty Underwriters, the compensation insurance carrier for S. C. Herring. The Hendrick Memorial Hospital intervened in said causes. The judgment was for Guest against the Federal Underwriters Exchange, and favorable to the Casualty Underwriters and the Hospital; the Federal Underwriters Exchange alone has appealed. Other facts necessary to an understanding of the questions presented will appear in a discussion thereof.
The Federal Underwriters Exchange contends, by its propositions one and two, that the judgment should be reversed and the cause dismissed for want of jurisdiction, because: First, the proceedings before the board were not sufficient to show a claim within the jurisdiction of the board, nor within the jurisdiction of the district court. Second, because the certified copy of the award of the board does not show that it is (a) the act of the Industrial Accident Board, or (b) the act of a majority of the members thereof, and (c) it does not show to be a final ruling or decision of the board from which an appeal may be taken.
It has recently been held by our Supreme Court that it is not necessary either for the purpose of showing jurisdiction of the board, or as a predicate to the jurisdiction of the court in which a suit may be filed to set aside the award of the board, that the claim filed with the board state the amount claimed by the employee, or facts from which such amount can be definitely determined. Booth v. Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n, Tex.Com.App., 123 S.W.2d 322, 331; Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Belcher, Tex. Civ.App., 126 S.W.2d 35, and cases there cited.
The concluding sentence of section 8 of Art. 8307, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., provides: "Any order, award or proceeding of said board when duly attested and sealed by the board or its secretary shall be admissible as evidence of the act of said board in any court in this State." The copy of the award introduced in evidence bore the usual certificate and seal of the secretary of the Industrial Accident Board. Under the statute it was admissible and constituted evidence of the act of said board. Certainly the presumption is that it was valid. The award which said defendant contends was not such a final award as could be appealed from is as follows:
The following authorities are relied upon by Federal Underwriters Exchange to support its contention that said award is not final and, hence, not appealable. Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v. Marsden, 127 Tex. 84, 92 S.W.2d 237; Petroleum Cas. Co. v. Webb, 127 Tex. 91, 92 S.W.2d 236; Tally v. Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n, Tex.Com.App., 48 S.W.2d 988; Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v. Lemons, 125 Tex. 373, 83 S.W.2d 658; Jones v. Texas Indemnity Ins. Co., Tex. CivApp., 15 S.W.2d 1077; Arter v. Southern Surety Co., Tex.Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 847, affirmed, Tex.Com.App., 44 S.W.2d 913. The Marsden, Webb, Tally and Lemons cases, supra, are hernia cases. It has been definitely decided in such cases that the award of the board directing the insurance carrier to furnish the compensation claimant an operation is not a final appealable award of the board. Tally v. Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n, Tex.Com.App., 48 S.W.2d 988. Said cases have no application to the award in question and are not decisive of the question of whether the award is appealable. Jones v. Texas Indemnity Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 15 S.W.2d 1077, writ refused, a decision by this court, merely holds that a letter by the board to a claimant's attorney simply declining said attorney's request for an immediate hearing of the claim, the board having never considered the claim on its merits, was not a final, and, therefore appealable award of the board. The only case cited by Federal Underwriters Exchange which we consider in any degree sustains its contention is that of Arter v. Southern Surety Co., Tex.Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 847, 849. It was there stated:
A writ of error was granted in that case, and, while the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals was affirmed, it was without reference to the decision quoted. See Southern Surety Co. v. Arter, Tex.Com. App., 44 S.W.2d 913.
In Lumbermen's Reciprocal Association v. Warren, Tex.Civ.App., 272 S.W. 826, 827, writ refused, an award of the Industrial Accident Board in all material respects substantially like the one under attack in this case was sustained against the contention that it was not a final award of the board and, therefore, not appealable. The award and the decision of the court on said question are shown by the following quotation from the opinion in said case:
The quoted language of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Reed
...Union Casualty Co. v. Carey et al., Tex.Civ.App., 38 S.W.2d 169, affirmed, Tex.Com.App., 55 S.W.2d 795; Federal Underwriters Exchange v. Guest et al., Tex.Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 708. Measured by this rule, to arrive at the correct compensation rate, we should first divide $2,051 by 305 to obt......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Dickson
...v. Yocham, Tex.Civ.App., 140 S.W.2d 341; Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Baker, Tex.Civ. App., 111 S.W.2d 837; Federal Underwriters Exchange v. Guest, Tex.Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 708; Vestal v. Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n, Tex.Com.App., 285 S. W. 1041. See also Middlebrook v. Texas Indemnity Ins.......
-
Southern Underwriters v. Yocham
...Ins. Co. v. Baker, Tex.Civ.App., 111 S.W.2d 837. The copy of award as certified was admissible in evidence. Federal Underwriters Exchange v. Guest, Tex.Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 708; Federal Underwriters Exchange v. Ener, Tex.Civ.App., 126 S. W.2d It is urged that plaintiff failed to show that d......
-
University of Tex. v. Johnson, 11077
...Associated Indemnity Corp. v. McGrew, 138 Tex. 583, 160 S.W.2d 912; Federal Underwriters Exchange v. Guest, Tex.Civ.App., writ dismissed, 129 S.W.2d 708. The cases cited by appellant fall into either of two categories. One, where the injured claimant was working for a fixed monthly salary. ......